Is Dan Patrick behind a dishonest propaganda campaign?

This podcast edition of Kenny Webster's Pursuit of Happiness features State Representative Briscoe Cain and journalists Tony Ortiz and Michael Quinn Sullivan. ( @KennethRWebster )

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The giganon Government sucks. Suit of Happiness Radio is deluxe.
Liberty and Freedom will make you smiles of a suit
of happing and us on your radio to al justice, cheeseburgers,
a living fries at Food.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Don't call it Kentucky Fried Chicken, It's just called KFC.
KFC is experiencing a sales decline. Yeah, evidently some people
are turned off by the thought of eating food from
a bucket. Imagine that. Remarkable? All right, on the show today,
it's all about Texas. Coming up in just a little bit,
my buddy Tony Ortiz current Revolt dot com. He is

(00:43):
about to expose a bunch of right wing so called
thought influencers who appear to be involved in a pay
to play skindle. We'll tell you about that. You probably
heard of a handful of them. Stay. Representative Briscoe Caine
is going to be calling in from the state capitol
to tell us what is going on with the new special.
Remember none of our Democrat cohorts are political opposite showed

(01:06):
up to work. Yeah, what's the deal with that? And
Michael Quinn Sullivan will be here with your week in review.
We're going to look at the Maha movement, and how
it's possible that Attorney General Ken Paxton, not RFK Junior,
is actually doing more right now to make America healthy again.
We'll explain what all that means. Before we get to
any of that, Can I just point out something I

(01:26):
noticed here a short time ago. Political polling is always
fascinating when you look at the polling data and then
you look at who is responsible for the polling data.
Here's a headline today, Pohl says a majority of Republican
primary voters support the THHC band. What majority is sixty
two percent of people? Sixty two percent? All right, Well

(01:48):
that's a lot of people, which is weird because you
know this is anecdotal. But as a human being that
exists in the state of Texas, one thing I do
not encounter very often. And I'm not saying I never
encounter I'm just saying I don't encounter them very often.
Are people that want to outlaw marijuana don't encounter it
a lot. I know most liberals are for legalization. I

(02:10):
would assume all of them are. Most independents are foreign illgalization,
moderatet centrist, And I would say from where I'm sitting.
It looks like most conservatives are even for it. Remember,
the reason we have these low grade, low potent CTCHC
shops and CBD shops around the state of Texas is
because a guy named Donald Trump signed something called the

(02:31):
Farm Act. Donald Trump has done more to help legalize
marijuana on a nationwide level than any Democrat president that
your sister in law have re voted for, which is
why Lieutenant Governor Dan patricks resistance to it is so suspicious.
Early on, we thought that he didn't like the marijuana
shops around Texas because he wanted to pander to some

(02:53):
little old lady who was offended by strip malls with
marijuana leaves in them. And then we learned he was
actually getting money. Would appear as though some of the
influence was from the medical marijuana industry. So Dan Patrick's
problem wasn't with marijuana in general, but just the fact
that you were paying so little for it. He wanted
you to pay more. Today, we see the results of
an opinion research poll opinion research for decision Making in

(03:16):
politics and Public affairs from a group called base Lice
and Associates, Incorporated, and they asked Texas primary voters a question.
The question was this. Two viewpoints were presented, and this
is how they frame it. THHD is the primary intoxicating
compound found in marijuana. The legislature is considering a bill

(03:39):
which would ban all THCHD consumables like vags, edibles, gummies,
and drinks. Which viewpoint about this THHC bill comes closest
to your own? Okay, that's kind of vague. It's a
little cutting. It doesn't seem like they're inserting too much
of an opinion into the question. Here are your two options,
option number one, and listen to how they phrased this.
Listen closely. Option number one. THCHD products need to be

(04:04):
banned in Texas because we need to protect children and
adults from dangerous THHC products that are causing erratic behavior,
severe mental, and sometimes permanent brain damage, and even death. Wow,
it sounds like they state an opinion there as a
fact right death, Who died from consuming marijuana? Nobody ever
in the nobody in the history of anything, has ever

(04:26):
died from consuming low grade THHD products. I would say
that question that that option is a lie. The statement
is very dishonest. Not to mention redundant They use the
words THHC products more than once in that sentence. But whatever,
here's the other option. THHD products should only remain available.
THHD products should remain available for sale in Texas because

(04:47):
they offer Texans the freedom to get high for many people.
What they don't, Boy, there's two really loaded statements there.
One statement they're telling you marijuana products are going to
kill you, and they don't point out out how this
is stuff people are using to treat inflammation, PTSD, glaucoma,
people with sleep dis or. They don't mention any of

(05:08):
the health benefits. They just tell you very miss very
dishonest things about how it's hurting people. And the other
option that they give you, they just say it's to
get high. They don't say anything else. All right, So
obviously it's a little misleading, the questions misleading, and that's
how they got to the sixty two to thirty percent margin. Fine, okay,

(05:28):
I accept that. But it's always interesting when you ask
yourself this question, where did the money for this poll
come from? Follow the money kids, Baselice and Associates Incorporated?
Who are they? Do?

Speaker 3 (05:44):
You know?

Speaker 2 (05:45):
You probably don't know. I didn't know, so I looked
it up. I like researching things. I think it's always
interesting to dig around a little bit. They have a
website where you can look up information about political donors.
It's called OpenSecrets dot org. It's not the only place
where you can get that information. It's just an easy

(06:05):
to use website. Baselice and Associates Incorporated actually donated let's
see here, seven hundred and fifty five thousand dollars to
Texans for Dan Patrick. Wait a second. This polling group,
this poll that's supposed to be, you know, nonpartisan, gave

(06:28):
almost a million dollars to the guy that's trying to
outlaw marijuana. And the results of their new polling data
say that most Republicans want to outlaw marijuana. I think
you're liars.

Speaker 4 (06:41):
America, the land of taxation that was founded to avoid taxation.
Kenny Webster's pursuit of happiness.

Speaker 2 (06:49):
All right. So they have all these linguistic experts, and
they did this investigation recently, a study, if you will,
so they could determine the origin of the word dog
and nobody could figure out. The investigation found that nobody
knows the origin of the word dog. But Christy Nome
claims it's native American for target practice. You're not going
to correct her. She's hot, right, I digress. I find

(07:14):
that over the past week there have been a lot
of right wing conservative influencers using words they quickly regretted.
If you are an advocate, if you are an avid
user of social media like yours, truly, you probably noticed
a handful of people on Twitter, big following in accounts
like Wanita Broaderick. You know who she is. She was
a part of the Bill Clinton scandal back in the nineties,

(07:37):
you know that one. And then there's this other guy
named Terrence and Gunther Eagleman. These are conservatives on social media.
They have millions of followers, and they recently started proclaiming
that Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows was doing a great
job at getting all the rogue Democrat lawmakers to come
home and participate in the quorum. Now, I imagine if

(08:00):
you're listening to this radio show, you understand immediately why
that doesn't make any sense. I can't help but notice
the special session ended today. Nothing was accomplished. It's over.
This is it. This is the last day. Governor Abbott
says he's going to have to call another one because
we didn't vote on things like the congressional redistricting or

(08:21):
marijuana laws or what was the other thing, flood mitigation. Right, Remember,
everybody was real mad about the flood and Texas Hill Country. Boy,
how quickly we forgot about that. That was just a
month ago. I'm one of those people. I'm always suspicious
of anyone who's praising someone when they don't deserve praise.
Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows is a guy who is

(08:41):
supported by every single Democrat in the House Legislature. They
all voted for him. That was not the guy that
conservatives wanted. That was the guy that the Democrats wanted.
So all the moderate Republicans, all the liberal Rhinos got
together and voted for the Texas House Speaker not long ago.
And every Democrat and every Rhino voted for Dustin Burrows.

(09:01):
And that's why he's our Texas House Speaker. And then
all of a sudden this past week, when he's having
maybe the worst week of his career as the Texas
House Speaker, all of a sudden, on social media, within
the same thirty minute period, within the same little window
of time, you see all these conservative so called thought
leaders on social media who never talked about Texas politics

(09:24):
ever in the history of their careers, suddenly telling you
Dustin Burrows is great. Something odd about There's a little suspicious,
isn't it. But it's even weirder than it sounds. A
friend of the show, a journalist who is hated by
a lot of people but often sheds light on lies
and displays truth is Tony Ortiz from Current Revolt dot com.

(09:45):
Tony noticed the same thing I did. Tony, How would
you explain this and what do you think is happening?

Speaker 5 (09:50):
Well, this is nothing new. Actually we reported on something
similar to this back in two thousand and three when
they were trying to impeach Ken pax Attorney General Ken
Pax Right, there was an organization that was given money,
a substantial amount of money, to pay influencers to post
in defense of Attorney General Kim Paxton. Now, you can

(10:12):
argue one way or the other whether Kim Paxon's great
or not, and I tend to lean towards these great
He's the fantastic attorney general. But there was organism, There
were organizations that were paying celebrities to post in favor
of him, and substantial amount of money. Now fast forward
two years, we have the exact we seem to have

(10:32):
the exact same thing happening, but with house speaker Dustin Burroughs, right,
And you've got, like what you said, You've got Terrence
Williams who lives in Houston. You've got Winny to Roderick
that lives in Arkansas. You've got guns through Eagle Men
that lives here in Texas. And you've got Ryan Fournier
that lives in North Carolina. And like you said, in

(10:53):
the same kind of window, they all put out these
very odd, very big promotion tweets or posts about Dustin Burrows,
and I ended up reaching out to several of them.
One of them has me blocked, but Terrence Williams and
wanted to boger, and they ended up deleting their tweets
after I reached out to them.

Speaker 2 (11:13):
Okay, so here's my question. If they deleted the tweets
after he reached out to them, what does that probably indicate.

Speaker 5 (11:22):
Well, it's odd, right, It could indicate a couple things.
It could indicate that they realized that their tweets were inaccurate,
or they weren't. Maybe they didn't buying them to be
as powerful as they were led to believe. You know,
Terrence Williams, when I asked him about it, he said
that he wasn't paid, but that somebody told him about
this topic and told him to post about it, which

(11:43):
is interesting.

Speaker 2 (11:44):
It's an interesting way to phrase that.

Speaker 5 (11:46):
So it could mean that they realized that the information
they were given was bad, or that they realized that
they were getting called out for paid from undisclosed paid
promotion and they felt embarrassed.

Speaker 2 (11:57):
Yeah, I got to assume they were probably getting paid,
but we can't prove it, and they're not doing anything illegal.
But it does seem a little hypocritical when people on
the right criticized Joe Biden Zoomers, remember he hired Zoomers
to tweet for him, people like Harry Sisson, And doesn't
this kind of seem like it's the same thing.

Speaker 5 (12:15):
Oh, it's super unethical. Absolutely, you're right, it's not illegal,
but it is an ethical when you have these maga influencers,
these right wing influencers who a lot of people respect
or care about the opinion of, and they're getting paid
under the table to promote specific politicians or policies. I mean,
most recently right before this, you know, the Texas the

(12:38):
Republicans in Texas were trying to pass a bill to
ban sugar and soda for snap benefits. Right, so our
tax dollars don't cover soda and candy. There was a
campaign launched by that lobby, the soda lobby, that was
paying political influencers to speak out against So you had

(13:01):
mag influencers actually promoting soda and candy that's paid for
by tax dollars. So this stuff is disgusting, it's very underhanded,
it's very gross. People don't like it. People want to
know if influencers are being paid to show politicians or
policy and they're not doing it. In fact, one time

(13:21):
I had an organization reach out to me and ask
me to put out some promotional tweets, and in the
work order it specifically says not disclose that it's a
paid ad.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
Yeah, okay, that's a little dishonest. I would agree with that. Look,
I always have mixed feelings about this stuff, Tony, because,
on one hand, if somebody is being paid to promote
a cause and they actually believe in the cause, then
probably it's not tainting the message. Right, Like if somebody
was a lifelong gun rights advocate, and someone owned a
firearms company and they gave some money to their you know,

(13:55):
the social media influencer, you know NRA or some gun
advocacy group. Okay, so what But if somebody's getting money
to support a cause they never previously cared about. In
this case, these political influencers you're talking about, I've never
seen them talk about Texas State legislature before. A handful
of the people we just mentioned don't even live in
the state of Texas. Then I think that is a

(14:16):
little bit unethical. Jan Aida Broderick is a nice lady.
We've had her on our morning show before. She lives
in Arkansas, and I'll say this, I kind of wonder,
you know, no offense to her or anything, but if
she deleted the tweet, if she was being paid, or
if somebody from the Trump administration or someone else was
asking her to write the tweet, and then you have
to wonder if she really meant it and she deleted

(14:37):
and she took it down after she realized what it meant.
Does that kind of cast doubt on the whole reason
why she's famous in the first place, which was allegations
she made against Bill Clinton in the nineties.

Speaker 5 (14:49):
Well, it's possible, right, Like, I think the bigger thing
is that a lot of these celebrities become celebrities for
kind of the dumbest or silliest or minute things, right,
Like I need about project If her allegations are true,
obviously a horrible thing to happen, But why is she
still a famous for this?

Speaker 2 (15:04):
Like?

Speaker 5 (15:05):
Why is this still a thing? You know, you had
this thing with Bill Clinton and now it's over, Like
why are you still why do you have one million
followers over it? And why are you tweeting out policy?
And why should anybody care what one need of Broderick
thinks about policy or politicians or elections? Like what makes
her you know, she had this incident with Bill Clinton allegedly,
Like what makes her a figurehead for this sort of thing? Right?

(15:28):
But you know, the politics has become this thing where
we glorify her celebrities and we turn peak politicians and
activists into celebrities, and it's just kind of become really gross.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
Yeah, I tend to agree with you. It is pretty gross,
Tony Ortiz. Fortunately there are trolls like us to hold
them accountable, am I right? My man? Yep? Absolutely, Tony
Ortiz Current Revolt dot Com. It doesn't cost anything to subscribe,
but there is like a bonus feature where they've got
really salacious dirt. They do a feature called people Are
Saying and monitoring the city situation. And some of the

(16:01):
website is free, some of it's not. Current Revolt dot
COM's the website. If you're interested in Texas politics, it's
not expensive, definitely worth it if you've got seven bucks.

Speaker 4 (16:10):
Well well, well, welcome to Stutter Class Pursuit of Happiness Radio.

Speaker 5 (16:15):
All right, all right, all right.

Speaker 2 (16:18):
It's all about Texas politics this afternoon here on KPRC
nine point fifty. If you missed it, Tony Ortiz was
just here talking about some of the paid influencers on
social media or are they to praise Dustin Burroughs? And
then an odd thing, how strange that so many of
these Texas I mean, they're not even Texans. They are
people outside of Texas with millions of followers, who, within

(16:41):
the same thirty minute period, all of a sudden, they
all just started praising Dustin Burrows. Very suspicious. I'm glad
we have journalists that notice that stuff coming up. In
a little bit, stopping by will be Michael Quinnsullivan from
Texas scorecard dot Com to point out how it's actually
Texas and our political system here that got those chemicals
out of hellog Cereal. I know it's weird you think

(17:03):
we did an RFK junior do that sort of We'll
tell you the story coming up in a little bit,
but right now we are actually going to go to
the Texas State Capitol where State Representative Briscoe Kane is
currently located at and there's been a lot of talk
about him throwing his hat in the race. Once they
do the congressional redistricting to go ahead and become a
representative for the people on the east side of Houston

(17:24):
in Washington, DC, that should be interesting to see. But
before any of that happens, first we have to redistrict.
But before we redistrict, before we draw those lines again,
we've got to have quorum and before and have a
legislative session. Well that's all over today. The do nothings
are still in Chicago or are they stay? Representative Briscoe

(17:44):
Kane on the line, Briscoe, if you had to bet
on polymarket dot com or one of these other websites
where people make prop bets they call them. You know,
it's not a real it's like a bet on, a
weird thing. Where are they? Where are they where they
claim to be? Where are some of your your fellow
statesmen at the moment?

Speaker 3 (18:01):
Well, I can solidly bet I believe they're not. Not
enough of them are in Texas, but some of their
probably home. I have strong feelings that there are a
few THEI are back here in Texas, hiding out at
some ranch something like that.

Speaker 2 (18:13):
There's just no doubt there.

Speaker 3 (18:15):
So these people are too prima donna to hang out
in a hotel room for weeks on end.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
Yeah, okay, so they're not actually hanging out at a
holiday inn in Naperville, Illinois. Nobody really thought that they were.
Who do you think paid for it? I mean, ag
the Attorney General is going after Beto. There was rumor
that it was JB. Pritzker. Supposedly it was George Soros's money.
I'm sure you don't know, you're not their accountant. But
what are people saying at the Capitol.

Speaker 3 (18:41):
Yeah, well, we'll certainly be finding out, at least if
they follow the ethics laws and disclose, you know, the
gifts and benefits they've been given, such as you know,
private transportation. Somebody paid for it probably wasn't them, and
we should know no soon enough. It is certainly concerning
whether bribery or any other ethical violations occurred. Until you
one thing, though, The capital has been a little less

(19:03):
empty these past few days. But at no time do
I believe has been safer for children or you or
anything like that. There's a whole lot less day. Them's
walking around the building, a lot less blue haired liberals
because you know their staff's gone as well, So it's
so a little peaceful around here.

Speaker 2 (19:19):
Yeah. Well, okay, well there's that, Yeah exactly. It smells better.
More people with deodorant today at the state Capitol. I
guess we've got that going for us back here in
the Houston area. I think you were the person that
actually introduced me to State Senator Mason Middleton a few
years back at the Republican State Convention when it was
in Houston. And he of course is well known for

(19:40):
being a guy that went after taxpayer funded lobbying, but
he also has pointed out on this radio show not
long ago that he and several others you as well,
i'm assuming, are helped change the laws in the state
to make it easier to get rid of a county
judge when they're not doing a good job. And Lena
Hidalgo has been so bad lately. How that is she?

(20:01):
Thank you? She's been so bad lately. She actually had
a meltdown yesterday at the Commissioner's court and a lot
of people didn't even notice. At this point. I think
it would become newsworthy if she had a day at
work where she didn't have a public temper tantrum. What
are your thoughts on that? Removing her from office before
next year's election. Do you think she even runs again.
I mean, there's a lot of people noticing brisco Caine.

(20:22):
She does not seem like she is mentally healthy.

Speaker 3 (20:26):
Well, Kenny, right now, you're spot on on the keep
having meltdowns. It seems actually that's the norm for her.
This is her state of mind, and man, I feel
bad for right She's clearly having some mental health issues
and that needs to be resolved. Whether she runs again,
of course, sets up to her, and she said she would.
I think it'd be great if she runs again. I

(20:47):
think she, in my opinion, is the preferred candidate for
November at least if Republicans want to really take back
Harris County.

Speaker 2 (20:54):
Yeah, that's crag Lady on the ballot. Alex Mieler has
pointed out that removing some of these moving Lena, for example,
leave an unpopular candidate in office. It's she didn't think
it was a good idea, just like Governor Abbott had
suggested that we could remove some of these rogue Democrat
lawmakers from office. And while it sounds good, would it

(21:15):
actually be helpful from a parliamentary procedural perspective? Would that
do us any good or would it just be something
that they would use to fundraise And would they all
ultimately end up back in office?

Speaker 5 (21:26):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (21:27):
Yeah, absolutely. It would be up to you know, the
people to remove her, certainly, and she could maybe win
that election, but right now I don't think so. And
that's similar to having her on the ballot to help Republicans.
I think the outcome would be good, and I think
her also being removed would release an election to remove
her would would end in our favor for sure.

Speaker 2 (21:49):
Okay, So with that being said, what about removing some
of these rogue Texas Democrat lawmakers from the ballot, as
ay from office? Is that a good idea.

Speaker 4 (22:01):
Absolutely.

Speaker 3 (22:01):
Look, I would say that people would like their employees
to show up to work, and if your employee's not
doing the job, you need to find a replacement. I
want to keep fighting for that. Now the texts there
has been some cases call in the Tech Supreme Court
Tech Streme Courts. I don't know. Now, some forty days
away from getting some answers, they've given a intenship. It
was called an expedited briefing schedule to look at whether
some of these people have vacated their seats or in

(22:23):
other words, abandoned their districts.

Speaker 2 (22:26):
On a national level, Barack Obama is trying to get
more involved in local politics. We've seen it twice this week.
Once supposedly he One report claims that he's meeting with
the New York City mayoral candidate Zorhan Mom Donnie, and
that the two of them had a little pow wow.
I think Obama supposedly was trying to teach Zorhan how

(22:46):
to make socialist policies sound more like mainstream policies. I
don't know if that's true or not. I also noticed
you posted a screenshot of Barack Obama on a laptop
because he didn't want to meet with the Texas House
Democrats in person. What's that about.

Speaker 3 (22:59):
It's pretty funny, right, I'm a serious that, like he
probably even had to be paid to do it, right,
he's searching for relevancy. I don't know if he's also
search for money, but what a desperate attempt to try
and remain relevant. It's a weird thing.

Speaker 2 (23:15):
Yeah, it's sure, is State Representative Briscocaine. Now that the
new session starting again, assuming we can get everybody back
to work, besides congressional redistricting, marijuana, the flood issue, what
do you think is the most pressing issue right now?

Speaker 3 (23:29):
Ooh man, you put me on that one. Certainly for
the voters from we heard his property tax relief, property
tax relief, property tax relief, but flover relief is an
important one. But there's some stuff when you've done in
Kingwood that is part of this pack with package. There
are some legitimate issues that we have to resolve with that,
and of course I've heard just plenty of stories. I
haven't met with any of the families personally yet, trying

(23:50):
to give them their space, but they're, you know, certainly
a little disappointed that the Democrat members of the House
have run off while at the same time saying something
should be done for the flooding, but they're not here.

Speaker 2 (24:01):
I have no specific issue with where we ended up
that On school choice, I mean, I don't have a
kid in the public schools, but it's my understanding for
my friends who are parents who want to send their
kids to charter schools or private schools or homeschooling, that
this school choice bill is good. It's adequate enough. I've
heard a handful of people, a smaller minority of people
who are advocates for school choice say they still don't

(24:23):
like the bill and they want to see it be
tweaked more. Where do you stand on that?

Speaker 3 (24:28):
I think should always be improved. Other states that have
formed the school choice have had decades to kind of
roll it down and expand it. On day one when
our starts, they'll be the largest in the country. There
will be some tweaks. We need to make sure it's
rolled out properly and correctly, and I think it'll be
expanded as its test didn't try.

Speaker 2 (24:46):
State Representative Brisco Kane follow him on X Quick Break.
Michael Quinnsullivan, Texas Scorecard Dot com right after this.

Speaker 4 (24:53):
Kenny has always thought the best things in life are free,
free plus tax. Of course, Kenny Webster's of happiness.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna says she has proof of the
existence of inter dimensional beings. I think somebody needs to
explain to her that that's just the way Steve Bouschemi looks.
He cannot help it. I know I told that joke
this morning, but I still think it's funny. I still
think that's funny. Poor Steve Buschemy. He doesn't deserve it.
I'm Kenny Webster. It's almost the end of the weekend.

(25:27):
This is our last segment of the week. Who better
to spend it with than a guy I often point out.
I think he is the smartest guy in Texas political media.
He is principled. He's one of the nicest guys I know,
which is why I always think it's interesting how rhinos
and liberals are terrified of him. Of course, he's ended
a few people's career in his lifetime. He is Michael
quinn Sullivan of Texas scorecard dot Com, and just scanning

(25:50):
his website this morning, something I think is very good
news here. Whatever you think of breakfast cereal. I'm sure
you would have to agree. If it's something you're feeding
to your kids, you hope there is and poison in it.
Attorney General Ken Paxton. Attorney General Ken Paxton is now
the guy we thank for getting Kellogg's to eliminate artificial

(26:10):
dyes from their their breakfast cereal. Michael, I thought this
would have been like an RFK junior thing. I guess
in a way, it's sort of is. But what is
Ken Paxton's tie into this whole news story?

Speaker 6 (26:20):
Yeah, this is all really fascinating.

Speaker 5 (26:22):
You know.

Speaker 6 (26:22):
We we've watched for years as these big companies, sometimes
with no pressure just because of you know, good corporate
sense and understanding the marketplace in Europe and elsewhere, they
have been taking these these artificial dies that have long
been suspected of being problematic. Not they're they're you know,

(26:44):
there's conflicting studies and all, but they've kind of aired
on the side of, hey, if this is bad for
my consumers, I probably don't want to kill my customers.
You know, that's business one oh one. Don't kill your customer.
They can't buy things when they're dead, and so so
they've been me and other places, but in the United States,
they continued to leave the junk in our foods and

(27:06):
people have yammered about it. And this is the kind
of thing, like you say, it feels like this is
what California should be doing, This is what you know
Vermont should be doing.

Speaker 5 (27:15):
Right.

Speaker 6 (27:16):
But this is where you know, politics is more of
a more of a circle than it is a line,
you know. And and you've had a lot of conservatives
for a while, you think kind of the the the
VAX's Choice moms and a lot of those kind of
folks and saying, hey, we need to ask we as
parents need to ask better questions, and we need to
demand better from the companies that provide the things that

(27:39):
we put into our kids. So with all that background,
Ken Paxon earlier this year his office entered into pre
investigation discussions with Kellogg's and apparently some of the other
food manufacturers about all this gunk they stick in our
food and Kellogg's is now the first company to agree

(28:01):
to take it out. It'll take about a year and
a half or so for them to change their processing
stuff in the United States, but this is a huge win.
And this is where Texas is doing because of the
size of Texas. Because we have an Attorney general who
is pretty dogged in these things and a NAGY staff

(28:21):
that's very dogged in these things. We're influencing the rest
of the country and the kind of thing Texas can't
be doing should be doing, and influencing it for good.

Speaker 2 (28:32):
Pretty big stuff, pretty exciting stuff. I think so too,
And I would say that it seems like Texas Attorney
General Ken Paxton is as important to the MAHA movement
make America healthy again as RFK Junior, which is not
something most people probably realize on a national level. And
as a free market guy, as a liberty Republican, Michael,
I think people should have the right to eat unhealthy
snack food if they want, but truth and advertising is

(28:55):
so important. If they actually put on the box what
this stuff does to you, the same way we do
years ago with cigarettes, I gotta think most people would
not feed it to their kids anymore. So Callogg's simply
taking the chemicals out of the food was probably the
smartest move from a business standpoint, wouldn't you agree? Oh?

Speaker 6 (29:11):
Absolutely again that they have been taking this stuff. A
lot of these come to obtain this stuff out of
the out of the food in other countries, in other
parts of the world, without legal action just begin because
the market has been saying we want it. The United States,
the market's been a little more fractured, and they haven't
been doing it. They've hid behind government regulations that would
seem to say that you have to use you know,

(29:34):
red ninety seven or whatever, you know these things are,
and and they've kind of been hiding it because it's
just easier. It's easier not to change things.

Speaker 2 (29:43):
It's easier not to change things.

Speaker 6 (29:45):
And so so you're right, this is where Ken pa
RFK Junior gets a lot of credit for being, you know,
kind of out there, you know, cheerleading and stuff. Ken
Paxton's kind of getting the job done. And I think
that's a that's kind of the key difference. So in
our clickbait world and the you know, the seven seconds

(30:05):
you have when you're flipping channels to get someone to
stick with your stick with your channel, you know, this
is where you need a Ken Paxton, someone who's willing
to just get it done.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
And uh, I think you know this.

Speaker 6 (30:18):
Is this is this will impact everyone in the everyone
in the country.

Speaker 2 (30:21):
Best Attorney general in America I've said it for years.
He's also suing pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly. For those who
aren't convinced by the point Michael and I both just made,
and the reason he's suing this big pharma company is
for allegedly offering illegal incentives to medical providers. That's against
the law. It's against the Taxas Healthcare Program Fraud Prevention Act. Michael,

(30:42):
can you you can you dive a little deeper into
this for us? Sure. My my father in law was
a family practiced dock.

Speaker 6 (30:49):
He's passed twe years ago now, but he was a
family practice doc and he would often complain about the
about the pharm of people coming in the pharmaceutical sales reps,
and they would come politely promise things, well, if you
if you have prescribed as much, we might be able
to get you to Disneyland or you know whatever kind
of kind of things. And he was always disgusted by

(31:10):
that's not how medicine should operate, you know, the doc
and the patient relationship. We had that kind of old
school since about the relationship. So that we've known for
a long time these companies have been doing this or
they will make these incentives to doctors and other healthcare providers.
Uh so the state of Texas finally got enough evidence
around it, and they are they're accusing Eli Lily in

(31:34):
court of being, you know, participating these kind of illegal scheme.
You only of course is saying no, we haven't done
any anything wrong, and we're going to keep not doing
anything wrong. We like the status quo, and and and
look and that This is where I think for many
of us, the U the ended idea of you know,
the are our heads want to say, Oh, the left

(31:55):
is going to be going after big farm and these
big companies. In fact, we as conservatives have a lot
more problems with big pharma, big tech, big bank, and
the left as the left actually loves these big despite
what they say, they actually love these big multinational corporations
that operate as kind of independent, woke entities of action

(32:16):
and government. And Eli Lilly, Big Pharma has been no
exception to that. And so here's Kim Paxson saying, now
you've got to behave ethically. You've got to you know,
you actually have to follow the laws. Those are the
laws are there to stop you from taking advantage of
the people of Texas. And so that's where where this
case is. And I think Eli Lilly is going to
find out going up against the largest law firm on

(32:38):
the planet with some of the best lawyers on the
planet is not going to work out for them. The
way they can run roughshod over uh, you know, over
other states, they can't.

Speaker 2 (32:48):
Do in Texas.

Speaker 6 (32:48):
If Texas is successful in this, in this investigation, in
this lawsuit again kind of like the Kellogg's thing, this
is going to change healthcare for the better for everyone
in the United States. That's a great thing that we're
able to do.

Speaker 2 (33:04):
I can't help but notice that Bernie Sanders is Senator
of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, and so many progressive
members of the House talk about big pharma being a
problematic influence on our lives, that they're poisoning our kids.
And yet here you have Attorney General Ken Paxton actually
doing the thing that they talk about often proclaim needs

(33:25):
to be done. Gosh, Michael, why aren't they singing as
praises today? Yeah? Well, look, I think they talk a
good gang.

Speaker 6 (33:34):
They're more than happy to say they don't like big pharma,
but in fact, every single policy that they push. Remember
what the Democrats really want is they want the biggest pharma.
They want a single government owned entity that all of
us have to line in front of and that they
can pick and choose which of us are allowed to
get the drugs who need to not need big and
choose which of us to get the procedures we need

(33:55):
and if wectuate nine months to get a cat scan,
like has been the case in Canada, the case in
the UK, like the case places, that's great because it
gets rid of the useless eaters. It lets them as
the ruling leap pick and choose. That's what big government
and social health care is all about. They want to
turn these big pharma companies into you know, into agencies

(34:17):
of government. And so the reason I don't see them
sharing this is because no matter what they say, and
they're talking points to their ill informed electorate, what they
they want something else. Well, here is Ken Paxton and
Texas making good on these common sense things that we.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
All actually want.

Speaker 6 (34:36):
We don't want big companies running rough shot over our
rights and our liberties and our health. We we we
expect them to behave honorably and act in our best interests.
And when they don't, they're going to find out that
Texas currently has an attorney general who who won't play
nice with them. And I would suggest to you, Kenny,

(34:57):
this is the kind of question now that we need
to be asking Joan Huffman, Mays Middleton, Aaron Wright, we
need to be asking them.

Speaker 2 (35:06):
Are you going to keep suing these companies?

Speaker 6 (35:09):
Are you going to keep after these bad actors that,
while they're you know, private companies are none of the
most acting as in the kind of a quasi governmental
role in the era of Obama Care and everything else,
Are you going to be.

Speaker 2 (35:22):
Going after them? And I think when you look real.

Speaker 6 (35:24):
Carefully, if their responses to that, you know, are they
going to be you know, play foot seats with big Pharma,
or are they, like Ken Paxton, going to be going
after big Tech, big Barma, big bank and the rest.

Speaker 2 (35:34):
Yeah, it's pretty obvious. Joan Huffman is the choice of
the neo cons in this ag race. I like Mays,
he's a local guy. I like him going after the
tax payer funded lobbyist. I don't dislike Aaron. The other
rumor is that Chip Roy might jump in. Whoever it is,
you got to hope they're as good as Ken Paxton.
I mean, he's been the best attorney general now for years,
multiple terms, which is why it's not that surprising that

(35:55):
he's crushing John Cornyn in every poll that we've seen.
No matter what happens, it's a shame we lose the
best ag. But I will say this also, my sources
tell me here in the Houston area that John Cornyn
was just here and he met with all these big donors.
I don't know if you heard this rumor or not.
I assume this is probably true. He met with all
these big check writing political donors and he told them,

(36:17):
I'm going to need seventy million dollars to beat Ken
Paxton the primary, or you're going to have to give
Ken Paxton two hundred million dollars to win the general election.
I don't find either of those things to be true.
I don't believe that Ken, that John Cornyn can spend
his way into winning the primary. I also don't think
Ken Paxton's going to need that much money to beat
Colin Alright or Beto O'Rourke or whoever it is. But

(36:39):
have you heard any of that, Michael, and do you
believe it?

Speaker 6 (36:42):
Well, that certainly is what I've not heard. This from
Team Cornyn. This is, though, what we have heard for
a couple cycles, running about people challenging Ken Paxon. Oh
my gosh, Ken Paxton's going to lose to insert name
of Democrat here. Therefore, you need me a responsible moderate
who will who will do the wishes of the deep state,

(37:06):
who will do the wishes of the Washington Sewer or
the you know, Austin swamp, whatever you need to.

Speaker 2 (37:12):
Put me in. So so, if you will give me.

Speaker 6 (37:15):
Seventy million dollars, that's better than having to give you know,
Paxton twenty two hundred million, whatever the numbers are. You know,
that's what we've heard time and again. Remember, Kim Paxton
was supposed to lose in a you know, fiery Hindenburg
style loss, according to Eva Guzman and Texans for Lawsuit

(37:36):
Reform and George P.

Speaker 2 (37:38):
Bush.

Speaker 5 (37:38):
He was going to.

Speaker 1 (37:39):
Lose, lose, lose, lose, lose.

Speaker 6 (37:42):
As the Attorney general four years ago. Instead he crushed, crushed, crushed,
crushed the Democrats four years ago. So so that this
game they like to play, they tell themselves that way,
they sound, oh well, you know, we're just trying to
save you save the seat. Look a Democrats not being
elected statewide. Some day a Democrat will be elected statewide

(38:02):
in Texas. It will be a Democrat who is pro life,
who is against taxpayer funded lobbying, will be a Democrat
who wants lower taxes. Will be a Democrat frankly, who
is a unicorn and does not exist today. A Democrat
will not be elected statewide in Texas in twenty twenty six.
It simply isn't going to happen. Kenny. The Democrats will
not win a single state wide race in twenty twenty
six period. Whether you're John Cornyn or Ken Paxton, either

(38:27):
one of them will be the.

Speaker 2 (38:29):
US Senator from Texas.

Speaker 6 (38:31):
One of the two of them will not be a Democrat.
So so these games that these, you know that the
politico's play. At some point, you would think that some
of these wealthy donors would go, you know, you've told
me this eight years running and it hasn't ever been true.
But I guess a fool and his money are soon parted.
Just because someone smart in business doesn't mean that they're smart.

Speaker 2 (38:50):
In politics and vice versa.

Speaker 6 (38:53):
So John Cornyn should be careful about asking these people
to write those checks because this might be the time
when Finally the people say they've had enough of it.

Speaker 2 (39:01):
Boy, it's a great way of explaining it. Michael Quinnsullivan
Texas Scorecard dot Com never enough time to talk to
this guy. If you're not subscribed to their email list,
what are you doing? Go to texascorecard dot com right now.
Click the subscription link. It's cheaper than the DALYs Morning
Snooze or the Austin Statesman or the Houston Chronicle, all
those things you pay money for. If you do pay

(39:23):
for Texas Scorecard doesn't charge a dime. They never do.
Check out their website today and follow Michael on X
while you're at it. To the rest of you, I
love you all. I hope you have a great weekend.
Get back here, bright and early Monday morning for more
of which you bought a radio for.

Speaker 4 (39:41):
You are listening to the Pursuit of Happiness Radio. Tell
the government to kiss your ass when you

Speaker 2 (39:51):
Listen to this show.